About the war on Iraq

[Chase]

Actually, we would make it a US territory, just like Guam and the Marshall Islands are in the South Pacific. There are other islands out there that we own, they're just not states and never will be.

Like the Hawaiin Islands? And Alaska's Aleutian Islands?

 

[Texan Guy]

Actually, we would make it a US territory, just like Guam and the Marshall Islands are in the South Pacific. There are other islands out there that we own, they're just not states and never will be.

No way. It won't happens. We already have a military base in the Persian Gulf, so, we don't need Iraq. Let the Iraqi govenment do it with the help of the United States troops. We need the troops to stay in Iraq for a while to kill more Al Qaida soldiers.

Like the Hawaiin Islands? And Alaska's Aleutian Islands?

Hawaii's islands are belongs to Hawaii; Aleutian Islands are belong to Alaska. Just like Michigan, should we let Wisconsin to have north Michigan? Hmm?

 

[Chase]

That's my point, Tex. Those islands in the Pacific are U.S. states.

And the U.S. doesn't "make" an area or territory a state. The majority of voters there apply for statehood and it's either granted or denied.

I don't think Iraq could qualify.

 

[Hwy99]

That's my point, Tex. Those islands in the Pacific are U.S. states.

And the U.S. doesn't "make" an area or territory a state. The majority of voters there apply for statehood and it's either granted or denied.

I don't think Iraq could qualify.

They aren't, not just yet.

Possible new states
See also: 51st state
Today, there are very few U.S. territories left that might potentially become new states. In light of recent events, the most likely candidate may be Puerto Rico. The commonwealth's government has organized several referendums on the question of status over the past several decades, though Congress has not recognized these as binding; all shown resulted in narrow victories for the status quo over statehood, with independence supported by only a small number of voters. In December 2005, a presidential task force proposed a new set of referendums on the issue; if Congress votes in line with the task force's recommendation, it would pave the way for the first Congressionally mandated votes on status in the island, and, potentially, statehood, by 2010.

The intention of the Founding Fathers was that the United States capital should be at a neutral site, not giving favor to any existing state; as a result, the District of Columbia was created in 1800 to serve as the seat of government. The inhabitants of the District do not have full representation in Congress or a sovereign elected government (they were allotted presidential electors by the 23rd amendment, and have a non-voting delegate in Congress). Some residents of the District support statehood of some form for that jurisdiction—either statehood for the whole district or for the inhabited part, with the remainder remaining under federal jurisdiction. While statehood is always a live political question in the District, the prospects for any movement in that direction in the immediate future seem dim. Instead, an emphasis on continuing Home Rule in the District while also giving the District a vote in Congress is gaining support. See also: District of Columbia voting rights

For the remaining permanently inhabited U.S. non-state jurisdictions—the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa—the prospects of statehood are remote. All have relatively small populations—Guam, with the most inhabitants, has a population less than 35 percent that of Wyoming, the least populous state—and have governments that are heavily reliant on federal funding. If these territories ever sought statehood, they would probably have to combine to maximize their population and territory - possibly with the addition of the former United States Trust Territories: Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands.

Constitutionally, a state may only be divided into more states with the approval both of Congress and of the state's legislature, as was the case when Maine was split off from Massachusetts. The idea that a Congressional joint resolution from 1845 might serve as a sort of advanced Congressional approval for a move to divide Texas today seems unlikely to pass muster. In fact, the clause in question was almost certainly intended to give Texas the option of entering the union as more than one state. As there is no organized movement today to divide Texas into multiple states, the point is largely academic.

U.S. state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting about Texas at last paragraph..

 

[Texan Guy]

On Texas' part, it won't happens. Not even in our lifetime or next generations' lifetimes. Texas will be always Texas.

 

[Hwy99]

On Texas' part, it won't happens. Not even in our lifetime or next generations' lifetimes. Texas will be always Texas.

Yeah I have low bet on Texas splitting up into multi-states, but have more bet on California experiencing splitting the states up into multi-states someday probably in the years 2020-2030 as due to their population going up double by 2050.

 

[Aleser]

I disagree with war. I disagree with fighting against people that can't really fight back. I disagree with the deaths of countless Iraqi civilians in pursuit of their so called 'freedom.'

I support non-violence. Because I do, I support getting the hell out of Iraq as soon as possible. No good has been done- no good will EVER be done for people living there, not by our troops.

 

[Macian]

I disagree with war. I disagree with fighting against people that can't really fight back. I disagree with the deaths of countless Iraqi civilians in pursuit of their so called 'freedom.'

I support non-violence. Because I do, I support getting the hell out of Iraq as soon as possible. No good has been done- no good will EVER be done for people living there, not by our troops.

i respectfully disagree wtih your comments, if the world was as rosy the twin towers would still be standing, we are defending not attacking, i know it wasn't Iraq who were responsible but they would have loved to have been and if we let them they would have done much worse, 9/11 was the straw that broke the camels back, we could no longer watch the fanatics getting stronger and plotting to destroy us.
like you I'd love to have the luxury of a non violent policy, but it's not realistic and I refuse to sit and wait for them to get stronger and stronger and come knocking on my door, do you seriously think they cared that the people int he towers couldn't fight back? they brought the war to us, not vice versa

 

[Aleser]

i respectfully disagree wtih your comments, if the world was as rosy the twin towers would still be standing, we are defending not attacking, i know it wasn't Iraq who were responsible but they would have loved to have been and if we let them they would have done much worse, 9/11 was the straw that broke the camels back, we could no longer watch the fanatics getting stronger and plotting to destroy us.
like you I'd love to have the luxury of a non violent policy, but it's not realistic and I refuse to sit and wait for them to get stronger and stronger and come knocking on my door, do you seriously think they cared that the people int he towers couldn't fight back? they brought the war to us, not vice versa

I should "respectfully" add that I'm an Iraqi-American.

Last I checked, I'm still not into explosives.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I'm glad we bombed Iraq.

Iraq shouldn't be a country.

We should make Iraq our 51st state.

We could use its natural resource--oil.

Are you a Terrorist?

 

[omegaman]

Just take a look at this chilling video. With weapons like these, no wonder the US intelligence felt something had to be done before its too late.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

 

[dreama]

I disagree with war. I disagree with fighting against people that can't really fight back. I disagree with the deaths of countless Iraqi civilians in pursuit of their so called 'freedom.'

I support non-violence. Because I do, I support getting the hell out of Iraq as soon as possible. No good has been done- no good will EVER be done for people living there, not by our troops.

Good post.

 

[Texan Guy]

Are you a Terrorist?

Nah, he's just a guy who is a homosexual. No offense, hope you don't mind my question, are you Nazi? Hmm, how do you feel IF I ask you if you're a terrorist, Nazi, Commie, Facist, and Al-Qaeda?

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Nah, he's just a guy who is a homosexual. No offense, hope you don't mind my question, are you Nazi? Hmm, how do you feel IF I ask you if you're a terrorist, Nazi, Commie, Facist, and Al-Qaeda?

Re-read Byrdie's word

"I'm glad we bombed Iraq"

"Iraq shouldn't be a country."

"We could use its natural resource--oil."

I ask him a question because the post, he made sound a Terrorist's talk.

Can you show me which posts, I support Nazi, Commie, Facist, or whatever?

No matter what you said "IF" but use your logic...

For your information, I don't care either Brydie is gay or not. He is a human like everyone.

 

[rdasilvari]

Just take a look at this chilling video. With weapons like these, no wonder the US intelligence felt something had to be done before its too late.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Yes, definitely. *chuckles*

For goodness sake, those sling-shots could have poked someone's eye out. I'm glad hat GWB made the world a safer place. Whewwwww.

More like: "Weapons of Minor Discomfort"?

 

[Byrdie714]

Are you a Terrorist?

We're ALL terrorists.

 

[authentic]

We're ALL terrorists.

Explain more about it, please?

 

[authentic]

Just take a look at this chilling video. With weapons like these, no wonder the US intelligence felt something had to be done before its too late.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

We all have that in Toys R Us.

 

[Byrdie714]

Explain more about it, please?

What's to explain?

We all are terrorists.

 

[ITPjohn]

False statements preceded war

Here's something that I saw this afternoon. It doesn't suprise me. GWB and Co. have less than a year left, so it's too late for impeachment. It will be interesting to see how GWB's administration is viewed 10 or 20 years from now. Watergate and Monicagate pale in comparison to Iraq.

Study: False statements preceded war - Yahoo! News

Study: False statements preceded war
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jan 23, 6:43 AM ET

A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.

___

On the Net:

Center For Public Integrity: The Center For Public Integrity

Fund For Independence in Journalism: The Fund for Independence in Journalism


Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2007 Yahoo All rights reserved.